And yet in recent years, more and
more Texas districts have gotten waivers to this requirement as a result of
these massive budget cuts.One Superintendent testified that 291 elementary
classrooms in her district exceeded the class size cap this year, compared to
only 10 in 2010-11. She added that “For every student you add, it
becomes increasingly more difficult for teachers to meet the needs of students.”She also said that only 5% of the students in
her district were on track to be ready for college.

Countless
educators and other expert witnesses have testified to the devastating effect
these cuts have had on Texas schools, as well as on the benefits of smaller
classes. Economist Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach testified that
students in smaller classes“tend to do better on standardized tests and
even eventually become better citizens, more likely to own their own homes and
save for retirement” and that “study after study shows that smaller classes
often mean greater success for students.”

(Here is a
study she co-authored showing that smaller
classes increased the rate of college
attendance, especially among poor students, and improved the probability of
earning a college degree, especially in high-earning fields such as science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.Here is another study she co-authored, showing that these
students were also more likely to own their own home and a 401K, more than
twenty years later.)

The first
witness called for the state’s defense on Friday was Grover
Whitehurst, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and a former
Asst. Secretary of Education under George W. Bush.With
Matt Chingos, the popular go-to researcher for the corporate reform crowd,
Whitehurst wrote a sketchy report for Brookings in 2011, arguing that
lowering class size was a waste of money, despite admitting in the report that
“very large class-size reductions, on the order of magnitude of 7-10 fewer
students per class, can have significant long-term effects on student
achievement and other meaningful outcomes.”

Instead,
Whitehurst and Chingos proposed funding unproven programs such as
“choosing more effective curriculum; reconstituting the teacher workforce (for
example by substituting Teach for America teachers for new teachers from traditional
training routes); and enrolling students in popular charter schools in urban
areas.”

And
yet in the report, the authors cited no research evidence or cost-benefit
analysis to back this up. They also proposed, again with no evidence, that laying
off teachers and increasing class size could have negligible effects on student
achievement if they firings were done right:

“If the teachers to be laid off were
chosen in a way largely unrelated to their effectiveness, such as “last in
first out,” then the associated increase in class size could well have a
negative effect on student achievement. But if schools choose the least
effective teachers to let go, then the effect of increased teacher quality
could make up for some or all of any negative effect of increasing class
size."(I debated Matt Chingos
about class size on CNN here.)

Yet
when Whitehurst was at the US Department of Education from 2002-2008, he headed
the Institute of Education Sciences, which in a 2003 report, cited class size reduction as only
one of four examples of education reforms
“found to be effective in randomized controlled trials – research’s “gold
standard.”

As the lead off witness for the state on Friday Whitehurst
argued that contrary to the claims of the plaintiffs, “Texas is doing pretty good” and that these huge
budget cuts were immaterial because class size doesn’t matter. Here is an excerpt from an article in the Dallas Morning News about Whitehurst’s testimony:

State
attorneys also have been arguing that larger class sizes in Texas – the result
of a $5.4 billion funding cut by the Legislature last year – have not hurt
students because class sizes don’t affect achievement. Whitehurst testified in
support of that position. But again, under cross examination by Dallas lawyer
John Turner, Whitehurst had to acknowledge that he wrote an article praising a
well-publicized study of lower class sizes in Tennessee that found significant
improvement in student achievement. Whitehurst explained that he had changed
his mind since writing the article and now has doubts that class size has much
impact on learning. In later testimony, he said he was being paid $340 an hour
by the state to testify in the case, and had already racked up 220 billable
hours – for just under $75,000 – before he took the witness stand.

220 billable hours for that testimony?That means Whitehurst must have worked nearly
thirty 8-hour days on it. Wonder what took him so long.